The GOP Is Addicted To LOSING | The Culture War's Across The Pond
Special guest Auron MacIntyre joins Tate and Connor to break down why the GOP appears addicted to losing, even when it has real leverage. They focus on Republican capitulation in redistricting fights, the refusal to wield power, and how institutional cowardice keeps handing wins to the Left. Connor compares this to the Right in the UK, pushing back on the idea that British conservatives are any more serious or competent. He contrasts American Republican weakness with the fragmentation, posturing, and failure to convert rhetoric into results on the UK Right — arguing that both movements suffer from different versions of the same disease. BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Hosts: Tate Brown @realTateBrown (everywhere) Connor Tomlinson @Con_Tomlinson (everywhere) Guest: Auron MacIntyre @AuronMacIntyre (everywhere) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL
Yeah, we're all hunkering down and weathering our respective political storms, but I'll get on to the UK stuff in a moment.
Oron, you had an excellent tweet out earlier, which is why we've brought you on, about how the GOP can never hope to win if it continues ceding ground to its enemies.
Sure, just a lot of people looking at what's going on with the right right now.
We have Republicans refusing to pull the trigger on redistricting.
They're not passing Trump's nominees into the cabinet and to the wider executive branch.
Just very easy stuff, very obvious stuff, easy wins that they should be picking up, and yet they completely refuse to do so.
And the thing we hear over and over again is it's about principle.
It's the principles that they really are upholding that are keeping them from taking these victory laps.
And at some point, we have to just admit that either the GOP is just controlled opposition.
It's simply not a real party.
And we have a uniparty in the United States.
Or if we really do think the GOP is at some level opposition, then we have to ask, why is it so committed to principles that routinely produce complete losses, complete failures, and seem to have no connection to actual moral understandings?
What is it about the GOP and its kind of the way it processes information that it ultimately continually comes back to these conclusions?
And if we are going to continue to pretend that these principles that make it impossible to win in every scenario are actually features of conservatism, then we need to ask harder questions, right?
Are these principles that conservatives actually developed?
Is this really what we believe in?
Or have we been told that this is actually the way that conservatives behave by a media apparatus that wants us to lose over and over again?
It's not like we don't know how to solve many of these problems, immigration, crime.
We know what's going on with this and we know how to fix it.
But once again, we always hear about how the principles are ultimately keeping us and restricting us from these critical actions.
And if that's going to be the status quo in the United States, obviously the right will lose over time.
The discourse, Trump has really been emphasizing the issue with the blue slips system, obviously where, you know, a single senator in the state where a judge is being appointed, a single senator can issue this blue slip, which then effectively instructs Congress to not approve of this judge appointment.
This has been going on in New Jersey recently.
And Chuck Grassley, the Republican who's beyond Unk, I think he's, I don't know, grand unk at this point.
He said basically like, look, the blue slips, it's part of our principles.
It makes it great.
Like during the Biden administration, we utilized it to prevent judge appointments.
And it's like, do these guys not realize we're getting shot at?
Do these guys not realize that our country has been completely overtaken by illegal immigrants and legal immigrants?
Do they not realize that like our inheritance is being robbed before our very own eyes?
It's these people just have no sense of what time it is whatsoever, and they're just petrified, I think, ultimately, of being looked down upon by the writers over at Politico, and it just completely paralyzes them.
It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen in my entire life, and it's going to destroy our country.
I made this point, I made this point yesterday.
It's like if the Trump administration fails, we kind of ran out of time 10 years ago.
So, if the Trump administration fails, it's legitimately over.
And these people just do not understand what is going on.
I really hope they don't understand what's going on because if they understand what's going on and they're behaving in this way, then that is something that's going to have to be accounted for by the Almighty, quite frankly.
Well, it's one of those scenarios where you think about what the parties stand for in theory, right?
The Democratic Party stands for government intervention, programs, building things, handing out jobs, redistributing wealth.
What are every one of these things?
These are ways to access power.
The Democratic Party is literally an ideological nexus of ways to justify wielding power.
What are conservatives against?
Big government, government growth, oversight, handing out any kind of welfare, any of these things that would build power.
What are Republicans ideologically opposed to?
Holding power.
So, when you have one party whose entire ideology is literally everything we do is justified because it gains us power, and one party whose principles say we can't ever take power under any circumstances, who wins, right?
Like, this is not, there's nothing about this that is confusing.
The question you want to ask is, why did the GOP become a nexus of ways to not hold power?
It's easy to understand why the Democrats were drawn to power, right?
But what is it about the conservative structure of the movement?
And I think, again, this largely goes to ideology.
This is what happens when conservatism stops conserving a people and a place and a way of life and instead tries to conserve some classical liberal abstraction of the way that ideally government should operate.
Government should operate in the way that serves the people.
Now, because we are a particular people with a particular way of being, there is a set of values that does inform how we should operate.
But ultimately, the reason to adhere to those values is the well-being of the people.
So, if there's a scenario in which tying up the federal government benefits the people, then we do it.
If there's a way in which actually it's just better to get rid of a judge or get rid of some obstacle that is allowing large amounts of violent illegal immigrants to continue to stay in the country, well, we should get rid of that because that's bad for the people.
By having that as our North Star instead of ideology, we avoid this abstraction and this creation of a nexus of rejecting power in every place and every time.
But I think we've embraced that, and that is one of the huge problems we have.
It's not sufficient enough to be a handbrake on your enemy's revolution.
You actually have to have a destination in mind.
And if you don't, I mean, the person who will then come to occupy the passenger seat will definitely do this.
The example that I have brought to mind because of your post where you say that the GOP hasn't confirmed the large number of Trump's appointments is that Jeremy Carl's appointment's been held in limbo, and he is omni-competent and understands the scourge of anti-white racism embedded into civil rights law and DEI.
You know, he made his name off the book on that, and he hasn't been appointed.
But over at the civil rights division, you've got Homie Dylan, who got up at NATCOM and said, this isn't your granddad's civil rights department.
We're taking the fight to the Democrats, who are the real racists.
And as soon as you have the illegal Indian truckers killing people by doing U-turns, she comes in and says, well, hold on a minute.
The real victims of this are the poor, innocent Sikh truckers who are getting a bad name because so many of them are in the country illegally on visa overstays on spurious trucking licenses and keep killing people in road accidents.
The real issue is that people who are noticing the problem are actually being too racist about it from my own side.
So we need to cleave away people from the right rather than focusing on solving the problem itself.
And you get to that position.
I mean, we've had the same thing in the UK, where in the early 2010s, the Conservative Party had been seismically defeated by Tony Blair's new labor revolution, and the long hangover of Margaret Thatcher was still on their minds.
And so the party chairman then was Theresa May, who ended up being the prime minister after David Cameron abdicated over Brexit.
She said that we've become the nasty party.
So David Cameron, who wanted to become the next candidate, instituted all women and minority shortlists to change the reputation of the party to be more diverse and progressive and become the heirs to Blair.
And he hated the fact that they were all straight white men, you know, the natural voter base of the conservative movement.
And so over time, he filled his party with a complete group of incompetents or ethnic malcontents who then lobbied to import more of their co-ethnics.
And hey, Presto, you get the immigration policy that results in England having the same level of legal migration as America every year.
And they do it all so that not just they can't be seen as not wanting to take power, but because they don't want to be called mean names by their revolutionary enemies who will never engage in a fair fight with them because they'd rather see them dead than succeed.
So not to be pedantic on this point, but I do think it actually matters a little bit in how we operate here, at least in the United States, it's important to understand that this is not the revolution.
This is the counter-revolution.
And that matters because of the way we behave with our institutions.
So one of the things that really messes up conservatives now is that we just constitutionally, obviously, want to conserve our institutions.
Institutions are what makes a society, right?
These are the things that are supposed to help us scale up our civilization and impart that generational knowledge, beliefs, traditions, all these things, norms, values to a wider population, many of which need to assimilate because they maybe didn't come from those values, these kind of things.
This is what we rely on institutions for when you're a scaled-up civilization.
The problem is those institutions are all now captured by the left.
All of them.
All of them.
And conservatives just can't get past this.
So when a guy like Trump enters, he's the revolution.
He's trying to change things, right?
But the institutions are counter-revolutionary.
They are conserving.
They are actually the conservatives.
They are conserving the system as it is now.
The revolution already happened.
That's what conservatives don't get.
The revolution is over.
You lost.
The communists are in control.
They own the institutions.
They have the media influence.
So when you have the situation where Trump comes in and tries to change something, all of these people who are advising even the Republicans in the GOP, the standard understanding in the Washington class, all pushes back against this, right?
Whether they're conservative or liberal, they are all functionally conservative in the sense of they are counter-revolutionary.
They are trying to stop the MAGR revolution and they are trying to keep the system at stasis, right?
The conservatives don't want it to get too radical.
The leftists maybe do, but they're all working to keep the thing in equilibrium around that kind of center of kind of the post-left revolution that has conquered the United States.
So when we're looking at this, we should understand there's a reason that like Jeremy Carl doesn't go through as where people of other demographics perhaps do.
And the reason is that built into the system, even under the conservative or Republican understanding, a female minority member is far more deserving of being appointed and you would never be caught dead pushing back against her, especially in the Republican Party, as opposed to like some straight white man, right?
Like that, that's the value that's still deeply encoded even in the right in the United States.
Well, yeah, because you're still seeing in the conservative world, we're still trying to operate within the left's framework and beat them at their own game.
And then on the flip side, like you said, I don't think people fully accepted that the rebellion or rather the revolution has concluded and it was a roaring success for the left because you'll see this thing where people on the right will say that they're disillusioned with the institutions.
They don't buy into it anymore.
Like you'll see critiques of Harvard saying, well, it's just this woke school, da-da-da-da.
But if their child got into Harvard, they would have a Harvard dad bumper sticker.
They would be over the moon.
They'd be like, my kid is so smart.
Because these institutions, they occupy such gravity in the American mind.
You can't just, you can't, you can't build a new one necessarily, but you certainly can't ignore that these institutions, when they're captured, are a devastating blow to any movement that is trying to gain power in the United States.
But to the earlier point with the framework, that's what's so frustrating seeing is this continued doubling down on like, maybe we can just trick minorities into voting for us.
And it's like, you can't step into that framework because the left just has it down.
They have these remittance networks built out for their voters to reward them for voting for their party.
And the Republican Party, just because of our fiscal conservatism, can never compete with that.
We can't, we should, but we can't build out that sort of infrastructure to reward our voters.
The only way we really can do so is through economic victories.
And I think Trump has correctly identified this with the tariffs.
Obviously, we got some good news on the data as far as exports, imports goes.
The trade deficit is being chipped away at.
That, for us, is how we can sort of build out this patronage network for the Republican Party voters.
But Trump and maybe a few other people in the party are the only ones that really seem to understand this.
Everyone else pays at lip service.
And then you have a whole contingent of the party that's even groveling and griping and complaining about the tariff regime because they just don't want to build out this patronage network for voters.
They just want to continue to repackage these ideas.
And they're like, okay, well, maybe if we put a new face on there, then maybe black people will finally vote for us.
And it's like, not how this works.
You can't compete with the left's patronage network.
Yeah, I mean, the simple fact is that the right and conservatives in the United States have entirely bought into the holy minority myth, right?
Like you don't, you're not valid.
Your opinion isn't valid unless a person of color is standing in front of the stage saying it, right?
This is why, you know, just insane stuff is constantly handed off to, you know, who's that?
Is it Rob Smith is the gay black guy who shows up on Fox News and all these things?
He gave a speech a few weeks ago about how he's done having to hear about how white Christian men have any value in the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is now a coalition of gays and Latinos and blacks and Somalians.
And this is what actually makes the Republican Party win now.
And that guy is not going to get canceled from anything.
He's not going to lose his ability to go on Fox News or whatever.
He can say all this insanely anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-straight man hatred.
He can spew his venom wherever he wants, and he'll be the good, you know, ethnically diverse conservative on the next panel on Fox News, and everybody knows it.
And you can't operate with that level of just like complete blindness to where you are and continue to think you're going to win any kind of cultural victory.
If the Republican Party can't reject a man like that, if they can't reject people who are buying babies, who are involved in human trafficking, who are involved in pushing eugenics, if they can't gatekeep any of these people, then don't come to me about, oh, I can't believe we're not gatekeeping like a Nick Fuentes or something.
Like, you won't keep anyone, and everyone can see why, right?
Like, ultimately, this is the problem.
So the Republicans have just embraced this entirely.
And as you say, the structure of the party is designed.
I think I would modify only to say that it's not that there is no patronage network for the Republican Party.
It's that the patronage network is almost entirely based on foreign policy.
So the foreign policy patronage network is extremely strong in the Conservative Party.
This is why there's still this undercurrent of constant war, even though that's not what the base wants.
MAGA doesn't want this.
But the Lindsey Grahams of the world are going to make sure that that paycheck keeps flowing through.
There's plenty of defense contractors.
Trust me, nobody who's voting Republican, voting for Ukraine is not getting money out of this thing, right?
Like they all know they're spreading the money around and that money's coming back to them.
The Patriots Network exists.
It's just that the conservatives, because they have these stalwart, middle-class, capable voters who can actually, you know, like buy groceries and things without money from the government, they can spend their patronage dollars instead of spending on like communities of people.
They can just throw it into these giant multinational corporations based on war because really their voters are going to vote for them no matter what.
Yeah, the model minority myth thing is most evident in the fact that Vivek Ramaswamy keeps failing upwards.
I mean, look, I know he basically got his start on Tim Cost, because believe me, I listened to the show for a very long time.
But it was very apparent that he was just saying what people wanted to hear until his Christmas crash out when he said that, you know, you've got to be Steve Urkel and do more spelling bees and Math Olympiads rather than having friends and playing football and doing Halo Land parties as a kid.
And even so, even despite his clear ethno-nepotistic lobbying for H-1Bs, he's currently running in Ohio and he's flipped to what? R-plus 10 state to now the Democrats leading him by a point.
And all she's had to do is see like she doesn't have seething contempt for white Americans and their culture and their desire to go to the mall on a Sunday rather than wrote learn a biology textbook.
And it was an easy blunder the Republicans didn't need to make, but because, I think for multiple reasons that I'll bring up in a moment, because they are wedded to this need to validate all of their opinions through the mouth of a minority that's, as Joe Biden would have said, clean and bright and articulate in order to not feel racist, they will enact the exact same diversity policies in their own party while ostensibly doing anti-woke things as their enemies want them to do, and then they end up morphing into,
if not a mirror image of their enemies, they accelerate the gains of the revolution because rather than being a white leftist and having this be an ideological motivation to flood your country full of third world migrants like you're the ideologue in the first chapter of Camp of the Saints, instead, for second-generation immigrants or first-generation immigrants in parties, this is just an instinct to say, of course, I would import my entire caste and clan and family and countrymen.
And so you actually get more coming in if you have a pretty patel or a Rishi Sunak or Kemi Baynock in charge of immigration policy.
And now we've got something going on in the UK, by the way, with Reform UK.
So they've just announced this new council candidate for Southampton, you know, very, very strong Indian Bengali area.
And there's a guy called Adi Mo, which I assume is shortened for Muhammad, Azadu Zaman.
And the post announcing that he's going to be a candidate literally said he plans to go back to his homeland someday, or he might move to the Middle East.
But in the meantime, he wants to represent his community by standing as a counselor for the anti-immigration party.
And he announced his candidacy in Bengali on Facebook.
So he's clearly just a striver, noticing this is like the top party in the polls and glomming himself onto it to have another thing to put on his LinkedIn, because for some reason that's big in the subcontinent, to like sort of boast about the number of positions you've had to up your is at or something.
But why is the anti-immigration party running this candidate?
Why are they entertaining this foss?
Why are they defending it?
It's because in the post-war moral order, to take the side of the indigenous population of white people, to say that actually heterosexual straight men, redundant, might be the best political candidates because they won't have as much compromise on them like all the gay staffers in DC or conservative politicians.
Well, that's leading down the road ineluctably to a closed society, Nazis and gas chambers.
And so we have to, in order to acquit ourselves of the accusations of racism and bigotry and being the second incarnation of Adolf Hitler, we have to put up minority candidates, even if they aren't qualified and even if they indulge in anti-white rhetoric.
And we have to stand by that anti-white rhetoric to prove that we aren't racist by the terms of our enemies that want to destroy our civilization.
And so you actually end up losing quicker and conceding to the revolution that your enemies have already successfully waged, as you've said, Oron, than if you had just given up and let them win the election in the first place.
Yeah, I mean, there's just a hard truth here that's unavoidable, and it's that any noticing of patterns is a problem, right?
So the left doesn't have this issue because they go out there and they just acknowledge that there are collective tribes, there are collective groups, they do have collective interests, they behave in specific ways, they have the right to lobby for those interests as a collectivity.
This is just the way that the world works for the left.
However, the right in the post-war consensus has been built on this idea that we have to understand now radical individualism.
Now, as a good Anglo-descendant, I'm got an affinity for a certain level of individualism.
I don't want to live in kind of the longhouse tribal way of like an Indian structure, those kind of things.
Like, I'm not looking necessarily for that level collectivity.
But we at least, at the very least, have to be able to recognize that other people do live in that way and that that way is real and it's valid and it's going to continue to exist whether we like it or not.
So whether we feel the need for deep ethnic nepotism, other peoples will.
And so the only way that we can interact with these peoples is with this base understanding that ethnic nepotism is real, that ethnic nepotism is tied to specific cultures and ways of being, and that we cannot, you know, just magically put these people on our soil and then dispel the power of ethnic nepotism.
Like, no, this is built deeply into the core of their being, the core of their culture, the core of their belief.
Yes, in all of these scenarios, there are probably a few people who can live our way.
And, you know, if they come here and for 30 years, they live as one of us and they marry, intermarry, and they understand our culture and absorb it and they become like us, then maybe their grandchildren can be part of our civilization.
This is how real integration worked throughout history, right?
No culture was completely sealed off.
There was always some way for people to join the tribe, join the civilization, but it was always multi-generational.
It was always something that involved a complete abandonment of your previous identity, a deep immersion in the new one.
And it was always done on an individual basis.
It is always when you bring in large diasporas of foreign people into given civilizations that this process absolutely fails.
And so the fact that we are continuing to look from the right at collective civilizations like India and pretending that they do not have that level of ethnic nepotism baked deeply into the substructure of the way that they think about things makes us vulnerable to them, them leveraging that against us.
There's no shock to most people that 70% of H-1Bs come from India.
It's not because India just has all the best and smartest people.
It's because they hire people that look like them.
If you talk to anybody in the tech sector, they know that increasingly there are large chunks of the sector that are completely dedicated to ethnic Indians.
It doesn't matter if you're qualified.
It just matters if you share a name with a guy or if you have a cousin connected to the guy.
That's all that matters.
And by the way, I'm going to say it.
There's nothing wrong with that at the end of the day.
It just should be happening in my country.
If these people weren't here, then their ethnic nepotism wouldn't be an issue.
But now that they are, we either have to crush that entirely or send them all back.
I'm just going to go with number two because one is almost impossible.
Like you actually need fascism if you want to, like you actually need to ideologically brainwash these people and force them continuously to have a particular state ideology if you actually want to crush that behavior out of them in one generation.
And I just don't want to do that.
Like I don't want to have that level of authoritarian structure to like just crush that impulse out of these people.
But also it's possible as well because that's premised on the idea that they are just fungible blank slates and that through either osmosis or a government-funded education program, they could be just like us.
I don't think like rote learning Mark Twain or Shakespeare is going to overcome generations of cousin marriage and make them as individualistic as you and me.
No, I was just saying is like, I mean, I think Wajahad Ali actually illustrated this very well: this contrast between collectivism, these collectivist mentalities, because he's like, what he said is actually more useful for us than Rob Smith.
And they're almost like analogs in a way where Wajah Ali was like bewildered.
He's like, why didn't you guys advocate for yourselves?
Like, we came here and took over and like you didn't really do anything about it.
Like, what's wrong with you?
He was almost like trying to help us out.
I mean, I know he was gloating, but he was like, seriously, like, why'd you let us in?
Like, what's wrong with you?
Versus Rob Smith was like, no, we're going to like take over.
Like, we're going to force all these different people into the coalition.
And then you're going to be accountable to us.
And like, you know, heterosexuals and Christians, actually, you're not allowed to advocate for yourselves anymore.
So it's like actually what Wajahat Ali was saying was actually a bit more useful in many ways.
Like, that was some of the one of the best videos I think to come out in recent times because that's ultimately the mentality of a lot of these people is they're almost bewildered about how easy it is to take advantage of us.
And it's like Oran was alluding to.
I mean, like, look, it's just the way, especially Anglos specifically, sort of construct their societies.
Is it's they don't advocate en masse as a group.
And there's certainly no ethnic nepotism.
It's actually the other way around.
I've seen, I grew up in the evangelical community.
I am a Protestant.
I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church.
And you would often hear a lot of these pastors disgruntled with how white their congregations were.
They would often be trying to look for like a black face or a Hispanic face to lead a ministry of some sort so they could, because it was just like it was almost shameful for them that their entire congregation sort of was the same community broadly, which makes sense.
That's just how human nature is.
But I just remembered hearing this over and over again.
It was almost this shame if they were to ever even be seen as selecting people for positions because they gelled with them the best.
And that's just kind of, again, natural if you come from the same background, same community.
It's just so bizarre, this self-destructive mentality that it's individualism, but now it's gone beyond where now it's attacking your in-group and prioritizing your out-group.
And I think that's fundamental.
I know, Oran, you talked about it recently on your show where you were discussing sort of the political violence, how it's sort of stratified.
And you were expanding on the out-group preference among people versus the in-group preference among other people.
I thought that was quite interesting and really pertinent to this topic.
Yeah, I had Aiden Paladin on, who's a fantastic social science researcher.
We were talking about who commits more violence.
And one of the things that we were pointing to was that the leftists, you know, this was my theory and one that she kind of backed up.
Apparently, she's doing a piece on this right now.
So we kind of came to the same conclusion simultaneously, was that one of the reasons the left is more violent is that they are constantly under siege as people who are focused on the out-group, right?
If you're part of the in-group, if you're conservative, you can relax once your in-group is in charge because you trust the people around you.
You have a certain level of affinity and brotherhood with the people who are in charge.
And so you can just depoliticize and become somebody who enjoys the society they live in once the people you agree with are in power.
But if you're a leftist, you're always against the in-group, which means you're, by definition, surrounded by people you are hostile to.
And you can never relax because when they're in power, obviously you oppose them, you oppose the in-group.
But even when you're in power, your job is to eliminate the in-group, which is dominant because they're an inherent threat to your existence.
So the leftists, whether they're in power or out of power, is just always in this revolutionary mode.
They're always thinking about revolutionary violence because otherwise, how do they deal with the fact that the in-group is surrounding them constantly?
So there's never a moment where they relax.
There's never a moment where they can be happy.
There's never a moment where they can depoliticize and live their life because the revolution is by definition eternal for them.
They're surrounded by the necessity of the revolution because they oppose the in-group that sits at the center of their society.
And here's how bad things are.
Okay.
Wajid Ali, in any sane world, every politician on the right would be playing that video all day, every day.
They would campaign on that video.
It would be ubiquitous.
It would be burned into the sensory perceptors of every American.
You would spend.
If we had real Republican billionaires, they would spend $100 million making that video the most famous video in American history because it lays out exactly what's going on.
And you know what?
Every single GOP person is not going to do it because they're cowards.
They're cowards and they are going to say, oh no, if you push that, that's going to give an artificial view that immigrants are trying to take over.
No, it's going to give an accurate view.
And that's what you're really worried about.
That people will actually understand where they're at.
That the frog has been boiling the entire time and that you, the Republican Party, have enabled this invasion at every step.
That they have let the barbarians in the gates and now all they can do is whine about the fact that the barbarians are burning civilization down.
That's the real problem.
And even in this dire moment, you know that 90% of the GOP will not touch this issue, even though it is screaming from the rooftops for an easy political victory.
A perfect example of this is the recent controversy about Shapiro appearing on trigonometry.
And I'm just going to keep hitting on this because I think it's the avatar of the conservatism whose time has long since passed, still reasserting itself as morally legitimate, saying to young Americans, if you've been priced out of housing in your area, he was focusing on New York, but it's a sort of transitory principle.
Then you just need to move to a place where opportunities are better.
And it's like, well, all the opportunities are centralized in cities, which are basically manufacturing plants for over-produced progressive elites who then inflict their poisonous politics on the rest of the country when they move out of the likes of California into Texas or Tennessee and Florida and try and make it purple.
But also, where else are you expecting them to go?
Because in the following day, when he defended his remarks, he immediately said, and we should also support the H-1B program.
And it's like, well, Ben, where do you think those thousands of Indians live?
They live in houses, which then puts pressure on the housing market after already putting pressure on the job market.
So not only can Americans not afford the house because they can't get the job, but they also can't afford the house because the demand is going up from the number of Indians that you're saying should be imported into the country.
And it's this completely disconnected thinking, this commitment to abstract principles that you've read from Milton Friedman, rather than the intent of conserving a particular American people and their way of life and their interests in a time and place, as you said at the start.
And you can't conserve those people because that's noticing patterns, noticing divisions, and therefore walking down the long and skull-paved road to Nazism.
It's that that has meant that the conservatives, in name only, rhinos, have ceded so much ground to their enemy that they're increasingly indistinguishable from their enemy, if not in rhetoric, at least in practice, in their appointments, in their policies, and in the kinds of injustices that are visited upon the native people of our respective countries that they're willing to tolerate or excuse as to not be called nastier names by their enemies.
Well, and the funny thing is, if you look at my YouTube channel, I think it's like the third video I ever did when I started this, was called the Ben Shapiro paradox.
And it hit exactly on this issue.
I was actually at the time analyzing the Tucker Shapiro showdown several years ago about Tucker saying, of course, if an economic system is not allowing my children to reproduce and have families, we should burn the system down.
I don't care what you call it.
You can call it anything you want, capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism.
If it prevents the flourishing of me and my family, that's what it's supposed to do.
And if it doesn't, then we should just destroy it, right?
And so this argument has been a very serious split in the conservative mentality for a while.
I would say this is really the core of the MAGA divide.
Ben Shapiro is a neoliberal.
That's it.
That's all there is to it.
He doesn't like abortion and he's against transgenderism and good.
Both those things are evil.
But ultimately, Shapiro is entirely bought into the cultural, economic, global American empire model of society.
He agrees with everything that makes it tick.
He doesn't think about any of the second order consequences of that economic system, whether it actually impacts the cultural issues he claims to care about.
He has not drawn any connective tissue between these things at all.
And look, there's a certain level of understanding about that.
We're not ultimately Marxist materialists, right?
Like they're like economic causes matter, systems matter, but so does faith, so does objective truth, so does tradition.
These things are all factors.
And the problem is with ideology, we have shoved these things into different sides of the divide.
We're only allowed to think about some parts of these things in one area and some parts of these things about another.
We're never allowed to holistically understand the situation in which our people are kept, the way in which the systems, traditions, economics, policies, religion, and everything around us ultimately impacts the well-being of the people we're supposed to care about.
And so until you banish that mentality from the Republican Party, and still you can get rid of this ideological understanding that that's what conservatism is.
Conservatism isn't conserving people.
It's not conserving a way of life.
It's not conserving a religion or tradition.
It's just modifying GDP and making sure that individualism reigns, some abstract understanding of rights entirely separated.
Don't forget, like Leo Strauss is the ideological center of much of conservative intellectual life.
What's his project?
Well, it's separating natural rights from God, right?
It's natural right exists apart from the divine.
It's not something you need.
You don't need to believe in Christianity.
And we hear this all the time now, even from Republicans.
Of course, a Muslim can have American values.
Of course, a Hindu can have American values.
These are Judeo-Christian values.
When did that happen?
Who knows?
But the point is that we can no longer identify that our values are actually tied to a specific way of life, a specific Protestant Christian, sorry, buddy, understanding of the way that society should be structured.
And many people can join, but they must understand that this is the core of who we are and what we believe and how we live our life.
That's what has to shift if the GDP ever wants to ultimately defeat what's happening with the left in America and the broader West.
I mean, I think the Big Beautiful Bill actually sort of turned this into a real, I mean, we really saw the divide around the Big Beautiful Bill because you had one side really pulling their hair out over the bet.
Again, this is not to downplay that the bet is a big problem and it's continuing to be so.
But with what was at stake, a lot of people were looking at things that were very tangible, very raw.
You could walk into a Costco and see the issue and they were saying, this needs to be addressed now.
I don't care how many zeros are on the end of this thing.
We're not going to have a country if we don't address this.
And so the debt will be a secondary issue if we're living in Brazil.
And that's where you really saw that divide.
Someone like Elon was a little bit removed because obviously he had like a personal gripe with the Big Beautiful Bill and these sorts of things.
But I remember seeing that discourse and it was that rift that you were talking about where we saw at the Tucker and Ben Shapiro.
It was on his Sunday special where Tucker was talking about like, well, I don't care how many cheap TVs and cheap plastic crap I can provide from China if it's rotted out the core of my country.
That kind of got rehashed again around the Big Beautiful Bill.
And again, you're starting to see some people growing disgruntledness with the tariffs.
I don't think we're putting this in the box anytime soon.
And this certainly seems to be the dominating philosophy among our congressmen, just based off of the rhetoric that they use surrounding these sorts of bills.
Obviously, they all kind of bought in for the big beautiful bill.
Their constituents were demanding it.
But there's that massive disconnect and it's getting very frustrating.
Yeah, it's very clear that ultimately a large portion of the Republican Party is just waiting around for Trump to go away.
Right.
There was this understanding that ultimately at first everyone was anti-Trump.
All these people who pretend to be big Trump shills now, they hated Trump the entire time.
They despise him.
And now they try to claim ownership of MA and who gets to be MAGA and what it means.
But they hated him.
They warned from the beginning that Trump was going to turn the Republican Party into a cult of personality and we were going to lose all these traditional Republican understandings.
And all the voters were like, thank God, less.
Yes, please, please, because they're so tired of these Republican bromides that just do nothing and mean nothing and are empty.
And so guess what?
That's exactly what happened.
Guess what?
When there's a Republican election, people show up for Trump and the people Trump endorses.
Sometimes it's bad because Trump endorses bad people, but that's the reality.
No one's showing up for the traditional GOP.
Nobody cares.
Everyone hates the Republican Party, including the Republican voting base.
And so the hope is that ultimately, if they can just let MAGA die, if it can become this impotent thing that didn't make any change, they can make sure that the agenda doesn't go forward.
They make it very hard for JD Vance to pick up that torch and carry it forward in victory because they muck up the Trump agenda, make sure he doesn't get anyone past.
I mean, we just saw the leaked footage of Trump complaining about the fact that he can't get any of his pointies done from his own party, and that's making it impossible for them to move the agenda forward.
And if you can just sabotage the agenda enough, then you don't have to directly oppose Trump, but he can just kind of fail and fizzle out.
And then the Mitt Romneys and the John McCains and the Jeb Bushes can step back into the room and they can resume the neocon dominance of the Republican Party.
It's very clear that whether that's an explicit agenda stated by some people like Max Abrams, or if it's an implicit one that is being carried out by many people in Congress, there is a significant portion of the Republican Party that's just waiting out the clock so that MAGA can die off and they can go back.
They can't quite skin suit it the way they did the Tea Party.
So instead, their only option is to do this.
And that's what we're seeing over and over again.
So I think that ultimately, you know, Trump knows that he's fighting both the party itself and the wider left.
And until that dynamic changes, you can't really trust the wider Republican apparatus to get anything done.